Recently in Conservatism Category

I was going through the very entertaining RamZPaul videos, when I came across his assertion to his Dec. 15 video in response to the horrific shooting in Connecticut that this country has survived even 1927, in Bath, Michigan, without a stampede to abolish our inalienable liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
It--"The Talk"--got him dismissed as a writer for National Review. But then again that mag has declined in significance for being less truthful and incisive about race and immigration than it used to be.

An unfortunate story has come out of Doc River's hometown of Maywood, a gang-ridden suburb of Chicago with 26,000 people (20 murders there in 2003, three more than for all of NH), which has seen a severe increase in crime. The demographics have also gone from largely blue-collar white to nearly 75 percent black, as reported n the 2010 census.

The sad anecdote that reveals a lot is in England's Daily Mail, where I chiefly go to find out what is happening in my country, though this time local coverage provides more info.

An off-duty cop on a motorcycle late on a Saturday night is traveling. A four-year-old girl, obviously not properly supervised after 10 pm and imprudently let out with an 18-year-old male cousin to a chicken restaurant across the street, darts out into traffic, not anywhere near a crosswalk, in a way that makes it impossible for the man on the motorcycle, an eight-year veteran with the Chicago police, to avoid striking both the little girl and her cousin.

The cop does everything he can to avoid injuring the people, though, sustaining injuries to himself, by leaping from the bike so it goes on its side. But the girl & cousin are still struck, though the injuries to both are minor--the abrasions on the girl's face turn out to be more painful than life threatening.

That's when an ugly situation gets uglier.
As more than one blogger has noted, Romney's choice of Representative Paul Ryan as his running mate is one that will make Team Obama sweat, particularly in light of the fact that Ryan has been a pitbull in regards to the out-of-control spending perpetrated by Congress since 2007 and the Obama administration in particular since January 2009.

It doesn't help Team Obama that Congress hasn't passed a budget for 1,200 days and counting. And Obama's official term runs 1461 days.

Here's some sobering facts about it:

The last time the Senate passed a budget was on April 29, 2009.
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 11 Aug 2012 at 12:38:57 AM GMT is: $15,920,131,113,709.46
The estimated population of the United States is 313,295,427, so each citizen's share of this debt is $50,815.08
Obama's $3.6 trillion budget proposal was defeated this year in the House of Representatives by a vote of 414-0.
Obama's FY2012 budget was defeated last year in the Senate, by a vote of 97-0.
By 2050, the national debt is set to hit 344 percent of the Gross Domestic Product.
By around Election Day, the total debt of the United States will be $16,394,000,000,000.00 ($16.394 trillion).

The first point brought up overlooks the fact that the budget passed then was a carryover from the end of the Bush administration, due directly to the machinations of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. The majority Democrat House and Senate delayed a vote on a budget they knew George W. Bush would have vetoed. Instead they relied on six months of continuing resolutions to keep the government funded until after Obama's election and inauguration. That is the major reason "Bush's" last budget was $600 billion in the red - it wasn't his budget, but Pelosi and Reid's.

It's also interesting to note that the last attempt to pass Obama's budget died without a single Democrat vote in favor in either the House or the Senate. Is it that they didn't like it any more than their Republican brethren or that they thought it would be easier to hide increasing deficit spending through the use of continuing resolutions? I'd like to believe they thought it was as much of a stinker as the GOP did. I'd like to. Really.

Should Romney and Ryan be elected to office, and with Ryan added to the ticket it seems to be more likely, I think we can expect the budget hammer to fall. No more trillion dollar plus deficits (we hope). No more "Let's tax the s**t out of the job makers!" No more unfunded mandates or multi-billion dollar government giveaways to industries incapable of standing on their own under any circumstances. No more interference in the energy markets. No more "the government knows best how to run the economy and your lives" BS.

Are Romney and Ryan the perfect candidates for the GOP? No, not by any means. But as we have to be reminded constantly, we can't let perfect be the enemy of good enough. Romney and Ryan are good enough.

Walker Wins

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)
A number of news organizations have called the Wisconsin recall election for Scott Walker. With 58% of the precincts reporting, it appears that as of 10:30PM EDT/9:30CDT that Scott walker has 57% of the vote to Tom Barrett's 42% (from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel).

Millions in union funds spent to recall Scott Walker and the public employee unions get their heads handed to them, and rightfully so. Too many of the union leaders and rank-and-file seemed to believe the taxpayer's money belonged to them rather than the people who actually earned it. Talk about being out of touch with reality. Their belief the gold-plated benefits and pensions they received in the past were owed to them when the people paying for them were struggling to make ends meet was the height of arrogance, setting them up for their failure.

But as Glenn Reynolds reminds us, "Don't get cocky, kid!"
Guest blogger Bill attended the Lakes Region (New Hampshire) TEA Party meeting in Moultonborough this evening, taking the opportunity to listen to Republican gubernatorial candidate Ovide Lamontagne speak. Here's his take on Lamontagne.

On Wed. May 23rd, Ovide Lamontagne came to the regular monthly Moultonboro TEA Party meeting at the Moultonboro Public Library. I've heard the man's name sporadically over the last couple of years, usually along with little bits and pieces of his views. Since he is running for Governor and since all those bits and pieces never really got strung together enough to have a real opinion about the man, I decided to go. The evening's event was well attended compared to one I had gone to a few months ago. After opening and a brief mention of America's current state using JKF as a reference point, he talked a bit about his personal and work past. He has always been surrounded by extended family, and has been a business attorney for over 20 years. Concurrent with that, he has served on multiple boards and councils ranging from the NH State Board of Education, the local Daniel Webster Council of the Boy Scouts of America, St. Mary's Bank, the Easter Seals Society, and the Governor's Commission on Domestic Violence. His public service resume is notably longer than that, with the positions Chairman and Director appearing more than not. Many of these details were spread out and elaborated through the evening. Shortly after this, he talked in a declarative way of his respect and admonishment for not just the Constitution of the United States, but of the Constitution of New Hampshire. Referring to each throughout the meeting as well, in both a first person understanding as well as a historical context that when combined often led to very natural moments that moved the audience. Personally, I believe I saw people being tugged and motivated simultaneously. Mr. Lamontagne spoke several times on such meaningful elements of personal freedom and the requisite personal responsibility a functioning Republic demands, that much of the audience appeared to feel not only related to, but I think also a little moved to be and do more than they have been. Now, I recognize that that sounded romantic and more than a little potentially contrived. The thing is, this was through the course of a conversation, he was not giving a speech. Mr. Lamontagne was communicating ideas and values that are deeply important to many people, and did it in a way that did not appear forced or rehearsed, making this audience rather appreciative.

So, he got good grades on the likability factor. That being said, if America is to survive, we have to remove Progressive brainwashing from our voting habits, among other things. By that I mean casting votes based on how candidates make us feel about ourselves, and on how pretty one speaks over the other, and all those unicorn and rainbow platitudes that we have allowed ourselves to be conditioned to [accept], all of which at direct expense of the substance and reality of our responsibilities in our Government. Voting on what amounts to a high school popularity contest is killing us. While I will not pretend to speak for the man or his campaign, and I fully recognize the limitations of my knowledge of the details of his positions, based on what was said that night, here is a short list of what I came away thinking of the man's positions:

He is highly motivated to regain the State of NH's state sovereignty that is by definition part of the Balance of Power in Federalism, doing so by judicious means of both roadblocks (vs. Obamacare) and slow means (vs. US Dept of Education).

He expressed strong interest in a state voter ID policy and stands against casinos in NH with the singular exception of the possible redevelopment of the Rockingham Park horse track.

He is both pro-life and appears to be willing to take a stand with Natural (Traditional) Marriage.

The Northern Pass was brought up, fortunately only in brief as that subject could (and does warrant) considerable dialogue. While he did not take a definitive stand for its development, it appeared that its development would be contingent on both the power lines being buried and that NH would have legal right to that power once its in the state. (The Northern Pass is a project to bring high voltage lines from Canada through New Hampshire into southern New England. The problem lies with the proposed route which takes it through some of the most scenic areas of the state, something that some folks in this state believe will destroy part of the tourist industry in favor of out-of-state electricity consumers. - ed.)

He expressed disinterest in enhancing any gun control law with several notes from a common sense, practical point of view. On the question of the creation of a state referendum, he appeared luke warm to it, but in such a way that one could not really tell if it was his opinion of it itself, the political reality of getting it through or some other issue.

He did make several strong stances on the need for vigilance (on all our parts) when it came to encroachments on NH's state power, including but not limited to Cap and Trade through any number of back doors, UN potential power grabs, and an overreaching Federal gov't in myriad forms.

There was an odd question posed by a member of the audience, that was followed by another person in the audience that appeared a set up/gotcha moment. One person asked a loose question that seemed to be "what's the hardest 'No" you've ever had to say?" Perhaps trying to get an idea of Mr. Lamontagne's ability to say "No" to someone when it would hurt. Possibly a character test question when so much of America is the weakest it's ever been, and at a time when Occupy demands everything with the veiled threat of violence. He answered it well from the position of his American/Conservative point of view. Taking his time to flesh out that there are things that just are not government's job to do. Adding, and I believe quite well, that a representative must say No in such a way as to be understood a decision has been made, but by such means that the person being refused realizes that that answer does not apply to everything that same person would ask for. That it was important to make the distinction between saying No to a thing, and not No to the person. The person's involvement and other future requests were still of some value, and will be heard and understood as such. This was said in such a simple and honest way that it would have demanded the President and other National representatives who call for civility and show none, be left shamed and humiliated. Fate however, would rear its head with a follow on question by another that was, simply put, "Are you going to make some kind of price control/anti-gouging law for gas and oil companies with their ridiculously inconsistent prices, that are forcing some people to choose to either eat, heat, or get their treatments?" Mr. Lamontagne did laugh, not at the question, but at the oddity of the moment, which everyone recognized as well. He then went on to explain that prices can be difficult, but that free markets by their nature do find their own ideal price, albeit over time, and that government usually makes things worse despite good intentions. The man that posed the question did in fact say that he respected Mr. Lamontagne for his answering a direct question honestly.

The meeting continued, but with this being the candidate's second such meeting that day and having a dinner date with his wife, left shortly after.

In a perfect world, when asked "Mr. Lamontagne, what are you going to do for me?" He would reply, "Nothing."

That's what I did on my field trip.

Frank Luntz of the Washington Post has an interesting piece dealing with the 5 Myths About Conservative Voters. Luntz attempts to address those myths that Democrats believe about conservative voters.

For the most part I agree with his points, but at times he gets a little mushy as if he doesn't want to offend the sensibilities of his liberal readers. On his very first "busted" myth he doesn't quite make the connection between what conservatives want in regards to government and what it means.

Conservatives care most about the size of government.

Today, conservatives don't want a reduced government so much as one that works better and wastes less.

In a poll we completed among self-identified conservatives just before the 2010 elections,"efficient" and "effective" government clearly beat "less" and "smaller" government. For conservatives, this debate is less about size than about results, along with a demand that elected officials demonstrate accountability and respect for the taxpayer, regardless of whether they're spending $1 million or $1 trillion.


It used to be that conservatives supported smaller government on theoretical grounds: The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen; government should only do for people what they truly cannot do for themselves; government isn't the solution, it is the problem.

I think Luntz missed the point. A government that works better and wastes less will be smaller. There won't need to be nearly as much government (and attendant bureaucrats) in order for government to perform its functions. One begets the other.

We want smaller government because it costs less and is more efficient. If being more efficient and less costly creates a smaller government, so be it. Just so long as they stop wasting taxpayer dollars on things we neither need or want.

(H/T Maggie's Farm)

Brains And Beauty

| | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (1)
Imagine my surprise to find out that Janine Turner (yes, that Janine Turner) has joined PJ Media.

Her first foray into the world of PJ Media delves into the daunting topic of How To Convert A Democrat.

One of her first points: Do not remain silent when Democrats start stating outright untruths. Silence is taken as agreement with a position, even if it is blatantly wrong. She also gives us a list of things to remember in our efforts to "convert unyielding and uninformed liberals". Among them, reason and knowledge.

To enter into this battle, one must be armed, agile, sharp, and resolute.

Here are some tools. When the Democrats start ranting, use the GIRLFRIENDS acronym to forge through the storm.

As the saying goes, Read The Whole Thing, including the comments.

Welcome to the blogosphere, Janine!
Why that is the case is ably described by Andrew C. McCarthy, one of the few adults working at National Review these days. The brutal and sadistic murder of the Fogel family was, in a perverse way, more dreadful than the horrific calamity that struck Japan around the same time. I'm thinking of the jubilant reaction to it by Palestinians in the street.

Oh, how I miss the days when John O'Sullivan was the editor of NR and Peter Brimelow was publishing front-page stories!

And another important insight is provided by the underappreciated reporter Charlotte Allen. Touring the streets of Cairo for the Weekly Standard, she discovers that what the typical Muslim yearns for is very different from what we yearn for. "It's as if they live in their own world," she concludes. (I may be paraphrasing.)

Let us keep them there.
Over the years I have had interesting conversations, and not a few heated discussions with progressives of all stripes. Far too often their arguments devolve into what they feel about something rather than what they think about it. Other times it's one lame talking point after another, many which sound good on the face of it but aren't backed up by personal experience, or history. It's all theory and feel-good sound bites. Failures in practical applications of their beliefs are explained away with excuses like "It was implemented poorly" or "Everyone has to be brought into the fold otherwise it doesn't work" or "We won't make the same mistakes the others made."

That last one is always my favorite, allowing me to use one of two rejoinders, those being: "Yeah, you'll make worse mistakes!" and "Do you know the definition of insanity? It's doing the same thing over and over, but expecting the results to be different this time." That always brings them up short.

But I am not the best person to speak on such matters. That title belongs to those who lived under the oppressive regimes of "progressive" or "socialist" utopian countries. More often than not they're capable of skewering ever single talking point or nonsensical utterance brought forth by the 'enlightened' progressives because they suffered under the very system the progressives wish to force upon us.

One such is ex-Soviet immigrant Oleg Atbashian, who poses a number of questions progressives are loath to answer:

Dear Americans, these are some questions I have collected in 16 years of living in your country. Please see if you can answer them for me:

If all cultures are equal, why doesn't UNESCO organize International Cannibalism Week festivals?

If all beliefs are equally valid, how come my belief in the absurdity of this maxim gets rejected by its proponents?

Once a politician labels the truth as hate speech, can anyone trust him to speak the truth afterward?

If a politician gets elected by the poor on a promise to eliminate poverty, wouldn't fulfilling his promise destroy his voting base? Wouldn't he rather benefit from the growing numbers of poor people? Isn't this an obvious conflict of interests?

How did the "war on poverty" end? Has there been a peace treaty or a ceasefire? Who is the occupying force and who are the insurgents?

Why weren't there demonstrations with anti-feudal slogans under feudal rule? And under Stalin, no anti-communist demonstrations? And under Hitler, no anti-fascist demonstrations? In a free capitalist society, anti-capitalist demonstrations are commonplace. Is capitalism really the worst system?

If the poor in America have things that people in other countries can only dream about, why is there a movement to make America more like those other countries?

If diversity training benefits everyone, why do those classes mostly consist of white heterosexual males?

How come those calling Sarah Palin a "bimbo" often look like part of Paris Hilton's entourage?

How come the unselfish Americans hate their country out of personal frustrations, while the selfish ones defend America with their lives?

If being a winner in nature's struggle for survival is selfish, does being extinct make you an altruist?

How come so many anti-American radicals are wearing American brands, listen to American music, watch American movies, and play American video games on computers designed by American engineers?

And finally, if all opinions are equal, how come a liberal who disagrees with a conservative is open-minded, but a conservative who disagrees with a liberal is a bigot?

Indeed. Read the whole thing and if there are any questions you can think of that might also annoy progressives, add them to the comments of Oleg's post.

Here are a few questions gleaned from the comments:

Why are gun control advocates so violent?

Why is it that the Left's mantra is "Celebrate Diversity" yet they all think the exact same and anybody who has a "diverse thought" is taken to the town square and hung?

Why is it I've never worked for a poor person?

If Communism was such a shining example for everyone, why didn't they put up a "Picture Window" instead of an Iron Curtain?

If all cultures are equal, then why are the liberals down on red-necks and conservatives?

Why do all leftist states have to build walls to keep their own people in, whereas rightist states have to build walls to keep other people out?

Why is leftism never judged by its reality but only by its lofty promises?

And the list goes on and on. Can any of you think of questions that would annoy progressives?

(H/T Maggie's Farm)

Budget Battles Expanding

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
The budget battles have started ay both the state and federal level. In Washington, Congress is dealing with the soon-to-expire continuing resolution that has funded government operations up till now. The GOP representatives are trying to trim $100 billion from budget for the remainder of the fiscal year, and moving to trim the bloated budget proposed by President Obama for the coming fiscal year.

Here in New Hampshire the governor put forth a budget that will bring spending down to pre-2008 levels in FY2012, trims the state workforce by 1100 jobs (10%), though only 255 jobs actual will be lost (the balance are jobs unfilled due to a hiring freeze), lowers the amount of state aid to towns and cities, pushes back the retirement age for state employees, and delays funding for hospital expansions. The new proposed two-year budget is $800 million lower than the present biennial budget, which helps fill the $800 million deficit created by the formerly Democrat majority legislature over the past 4 years.

To read some of the comments about the slimmer budget, you'd think the governor and the legislature is proposing stealing bread from the mouths of the poor at the behest of the rich. Some are proposing a state income tax or sales tax to fill the budget gap despite plenty of history showing the tax monies raised would only be wasted and, in the end, leave the state even more vulnerable to economic downturns. (All one needs to do is look at the states with such taxes to see what an unmitigated financial disaster was created by dependence on those taxes.) Far too many of the economic ignoramuses seem to thing we have a revenue problem when the truth is we've had a spending problem. As one commenter put it, "This is less than a 10% reduction in state spending. I know families that have reduced their spending by 10%, and some by as much as 40%." If we can do it, so can the state.

Other states, like Wisconsin and Ohio are seeing pushback by their state employees despite the fact that both states are facing huge budget deficits and raising taxes any further would cause far more economic harm.

In Wisconsin, state employees protested at the state capitol building, decrying Governor Scott Walker's push to limit the public employees unions' grip on state payrolls in an effort to deal with an $8.3 billion budget shortfall. Listening to some of the protesters you'd think they believe they have the right to a job for life and that the state's taxpayers had better come up with the cash to pay their salaries and benefits, or else. They complain about measures the state has taken that private businesses have had to take in the recent past in order to survive, like increasing the the amount employees pay towards their health insurance. What makes them think they are somehow immune from the effects of a bad economy and state cash flow problems? As if that isn't bad enough, Wisconsin State Senate Democrats have fled the state and hidden themselves in Illinois in order to prevent any further legislative action from being taken on the matter.

Similar scenes are taking place in Ohio as well, where the state faces a similar $8 billion budget shortfall.

The question is, when will the state legislatures and employees start listening to the taxpayers, who have said "Enough! We can't afford any more!" The answer? Not any time soon.
Has the next in a series of death blows been visited upon ObamaCare? If the recent decision by Federal Judge Roger Vinson striking down ObamaCare is any indicator, then the answer is a resounding "Yes!"

As Judge Vinson took pains to emphasize, the case is not really about health care at all, or the wisdom--we would argue the destructiveness--of the newest entitlement. Rather, the Florida case goes to the core of the architecture of the American system, and whether there are any remaining limits on federal control. Judge Vinson's 78-page ruling in favor of 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business, among others, is by far the best legal vindication to date of Constitutional principles that form the outer boundaries of federal power.

ObamaCare mandated every citizen must buy health insurance in order to remain a citizen on good standing, in effect forcing people into an economic activity - buying a service from a provider whether they want to or not - and justifying it under the Commerce Clause. The judge wasn't buying it, nor the governments claim that even inactivity is really economic activity, particularly in light of the fact that citizens can't buy health insurance across state lines, therefore the activity isn't considered interstate commerce. (In case you aren't aware, the Commerce Clause in the constitution deals with regulating interstate commerce as a means of preventing one state from putting up barriers to trade with other states.) The government really tried to stretch the meaning of the Commerce Clause into areas it was never meant to cover.

Ironically, congressional Democrats of the 111th Congress may have laid the foundations of the law's own destruction.

Judge Vinson also went beyond the Virginia case in striking down the entire ObamaCare statute--paradoxically, an act of judicial modesty. Democrats intentionally left out a "severability" clause if one part of the bill was struck down, and the Administration repeatedly argued that the individual mandate was "essential" to the bill's goals and mechanisms and compared it to "a finely crafted watch." Judge Vinson writes that picking and choosing among thousands of sections would be "tantamount to rewriting a statute in an attempt to salvage it."

As such, severability allows for one portion of a statute in question to be struck down as unconstitutional without affecting the rest of it. Without it, if one portion is struck down, the entire statute is struck down. Should Judge Vinson's decision survive appeal, and if required, Supreme Court review, ObamaCare will be dead.

So much for Nancy Pelosi's dismissal of ObamaCare's constitutionality.

Vinson went deeper, also addressing the backdoor use of the Necessary and Proper Clause to justify the government's actions.

Judge Vinson flatly rejected the administration's attempt to escape the restrictions of the Commerce Clause by appealing to the Necessary and Proper Clause. His decision acknowledges that, while reforming an insurance market is a regulation of commerce, Congress cannot artificially create its own "free rider" crisis in the insurance market and then use that crisis to justify an otherwise unconstitutional mandate as "necessary and proper" to save the market from collapse.

So, in effect what the government was trying to do was create a health care crisis, and then use that crisis to implement control over the health care system. It sounds almost like the old Mob "protection" racket: "Gee, that's a nice health care system you've got there. It would be a shame if anything were to happen to it...." It's almost like something out of The Untouchables. (Hey, didn't that take place in Chicago? And isn't Obama a creation of the Chicago political machine? I'm just sayin'....)

The decision has affected at least one state not part of the suit.

Here in New Hampshire, Republican House leaders have called on the Executive Council to reject a proposed $610,675 consulting contract that would lay the groundwork for implementing the provisions of ObamaCare.

...Gov. John Lynch (sic) press secretary Colin Manning said the council may not get the chance to take up the contract at their meeting -- it could be pulled from the agenda by Lynch or withdrawn from consideration by Insurance Commissioner Roger Sevigny.

"My understanding is that it will not come up for a vote," Manning said late Tuesday.

If the council does vote to reject the contract, Lynch cannot override the vote.

While the previously Democrat majority legislature and Executive Council would have likely gone along with this effort, the present legislature - a heavy GOP super-majority in both the House and Senate - and the all Republican Executive Council, are likely to block any action or funding for such an effort, particularly in light of Judge Vinson's decision. With a return to fiscal sanity in Concord, it is highly unlikely the legislature or the council will go along with something that will eventually lead to millions being added to the budget deficit already facing the state.

It seems ObamaCare is on the path to a well deserved death.

UPDATE: David Harsanyi delves into the claims by the White House that Judge Vinson's decision was nothing more than judicial activism.

Writes Harsanyi:

Co-opting conservative terms like "judicial activism" is a cute way of trying to turn the tables on those who have some reverence for the original intent of the Founders.


Vinson may be overruled, but his decision is cogent and persuasive and doesn't seek out excuses for abuse. His ruling asks for the kind of government restraint that judges rarely have the appetite to call for, even though, need I remind you, "judicial activism" in the defense of liberty is no vice.

Apparently judicial activism is only proper when a decision expands the power of progressives working to weaken individual rights in favor of more control by the state, ignoring the Constitution or creating new rights out of thin air.
In yet another First-In-The-Nation moment, the New Hampshire GOP selected Tea party activist Jack Kimball as its new chairman, replacing outgoing chairman former governor John H. Sununu.

After a sweeping GOP victory in state-wide elections this past November with both chambers of the state legislature seating GOP super-majorities and the Executive Council being 100% Republican, Tea party supporters worked had to seat Kimball as the new chairman, hoping to make sure New Hampshire returns to it's traditional fiscal frugality after 4 years of deficit-ridden rule by Democrats.
The more I read and hear about New Jersey Governor Chris Christie the more I like the guy.

Why do I like him? It's simple, really. He speaks his mind. He says what he means and means what he says. In other words, he's blunt. He doesn't use euphemisms to skirt around issues or situations others might fear to address. If only there were more like him in government.

We've seen the videos of him addressing teachers, state employees, journalists, and just plain folks and telling them things they may not want to hear but need to hear. We've read about many of these same encounters. And each time he comes out ahead of his detractors and gains support from the "just plain folks."

With that in mind we should take a look at what the Philadelphia Daily News has dubbed "The Sayings of Chris Christie." A few examples:

"Let me help you pack."

That's what N.J. Gov. Chris Christie said to an overpaid school superintendent who tried to front-load his contract so he wouldn't be subject to Christie's proposed salary cap. When Christie tagged the superintendent the "poster boy of greed and arrogance," the school chief noted that he didn't have to work in Jersey - he could go elsewhere.


"Why would I want a less powerful job than the one I have now?"

Christie's tongue-in-cheek take on the notion that he might run for president. In fact, New Jersey's constitution grants the governor far more power than the governors of most other states. As for a presidential bid in 2012, Christie still says, "No way."


"I didn't want to be governor to be something. I wanted to be governor to do something." Christie's self-proclaimed raison d'être. This goes with a story about how he doesn't care if he's re-elected, he simply wants to get things done.

You gotta love a guy like that. As the saying goes, Read The Whole Thing. Pay close attention to the comments as I think you'll find more than a few people not liking the idea that their governor is willing to let New Jersey taxpayers keep more of their money.
Bill Whittle addresses American Exceptionalism, something we know our present President doesn't like and has been working hard to destroy. But I think Obama will find that while he may dent it a bit, he doesn't have the wherewithal to overcome the sheer inertia of American Exceptionalism. American know-how and those providing it will always find a way around those in this country working hard to bring about its downfall.

One thing I found interesting: With only 5% of the world's population, American produces 24% of the world's GDP, which is 3 times more than China produces even though it has over 4 times as many people.

Let The Budgeting Begin!

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
The budget season has started here in New Hampshire, with towns, cities, and the state working to put together budgets for the upcoming fiscal year.

It may be the recent win by self-declared fiscal conservatives in state and national elections that have driven home the point that the taxpayers have had enough of profligate spending and will be watching their elected officials much more closely than they have in the past.

Our little town has been way ahead of the pack, with the selectmen and the budget committee scrutinizing every penny and making cuts to keep spending in check during these difficult economic times. Should both entities get their way, our town's budget for the next fiscal year will be smaller than this year's, the third year in a row for that trend. The same is true of the school budget. (Like most towns and cities in New Hampshire, the municipal and school budgets are entirely separate. But in towns like ours with an elected budget committee, the committee reviews and votes whether or not to recommend the warrants articles from both.)

At the state level the governor has already warned state agencies to prepare for tough choices they'll have to make.

The previous two budgets increased spending by more than 30% over the past 4 years (New Hampshire has a two-year budget), but this time around the Democrat governor has to deal with an overwhelmingly Republican legislature (74.5% of the seats in the 400 seat New Hampshire House are in the hands of the GOP, as are 79% of the seats in the state Senate). During the previous two budgets the governor had a Democrat majority in the legislature to back up his spending plans. Assuming the Republicans in the legislature follow through on their promises to keep spending in check, if not roll back some expenditures and the taxes that go with them, it can be expected that state spending will remain flat, if not decrease from the present biennial budget. And should the governor veto a lean GOP budget, both chambers of the legislature have the votes to override it.

It will be interesting to watch the budget deliberations at the local and state level and compare it to what will be going on in Washington during the 112th Congress. Our Representatives and our Senators in Congress know we will be watching closely and will be more than willing to throw them out if they don't do as so many at the state and local level have done: keep spending and taxes in check.
Bill Whittle tackles yet another myth about the Tea party, specifically immigration and racism. As Bill tells us, far too many Tea party detractors have labeled us "stupid uneducated Neanderthals. We're white trash rednecks, knuckle-dragging proto-Nazis, KKK-loving violent extremists ready to execute anyone who won't bend their knee to the upcoming Christian theocracy...Oh, and we're domestic terrorists." We've also been accused of being anti-immigration. We're not. We're anti-illegal immigration. There's a big difference.

I'll let Bill explain it as he does so far better than I can.

I must admit I like his suggestion about going to Jessica Alba's or Lady Gaga's house and showing them up for the hypocrites they are.
Far too many people really have little understanding of the Second Amendment and why the Framers of the Constitution included it. And many of those same people have the mistaken belief that disarming a law abiding citizenry will somehow lead to less crime and violence despite abundant evidence to the contrary.

In the next is his series, Bill Whittle explains why 'they' are mistaken and why so many of the rest of us own and carry guns.

As the old saying goes when it comes to dealing with violent criminal miscreants, "Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."
Bill Whittle continues with his series about what it is we believe and why in his efforts to dispel the myths about the Tea party and its supporters.

I particularly agree with his point about the economy, specifically that the recession was "created by bad law."
One of the great tenets of the Left is that wealth is a zero-sum game, meaning they believe that in order for one person to become wealthy that someone else had to become poor.

Those of us who support the Tea party know that belief to be a canard, an excuse to steal wealth from those who created it.

If you aren't sure you believe that, then Bill Whittle has a little lesson about wealth, how it's created, and who benefits. (A hint: Everyone benefits.)

In this rather timely WSJ opinion piece, Peter Berkowitz delves into more reasons why liberals don't (or can't) understand the Tea party movement.

What's worse, they don't even understand the basis or the basics of our form of government, nor do they want to.

Highly educated people say the darndest things, these days particularly about the tea party movement. Vast numbers of other highly educated people read and hear these dubious pronouncements, smile knowingly, and nod their heads in agreement. University educations and advanced degrees notwithstanding, they lack a basic understanding of the contours of American constitutional government.

In their ignorance they see the bliss of a totalitarian state, where they make the decisions for the rest of us poor benighted souls incapable of understanding their superiority.

Yeah. Right.

Unfortunately it is these very same liberals who are the benighted souls incapable of understanding their inferiority to a incredibly large majority of Americans, a majority that understand what can make or break a business, who see the direct effects of poor government and ever more onerous taxes and regulations. In other words, they cannot understand why the Tea parties have been garnering so much support. It comes down a simple concept:

The Tea parties understand the inferiority of the liberal mind set and their inability to see that which is right in front of them - the country can't keep spending money it doesn't have on government programs that don't work run by people who are barely competent enough to run their own lives, let alone anyone else's.

It's easy for liberals to disparage Tea partiers as a resurrection of the Know-Nothing Party of the 1850's, but they have shown themselves to be the modern day Know-Nothings, particularly when it comes to the origin of the Tea party moniker.

That lack was shown quite publicly when the liberals tore into Tea party favorite Sarah Palin for her comment "Party like it's 1773."

When Sarah Palin told a Tea Party crowd last Monday that it wasn't time yet to "party like it's 1773," segments of the left such as Kos's founder Markos Moulitsas chortled at her supposed stupidity. Their kneejerk assumption was that Palin was so ignorant that she didn't even know the date of early events in the American Revolution. But since it was actually the Boston Tea Party (1773) to which she was referring, it was Sarah who had the last laugh.

Commenters and lefty bloggers galore echoed Markos Moulitsas's post. Of course if they'd spent about 30 seconds Googling "Tea Party" and "1773" they would have come across the Boston Tea Party - which took place on December 16, 1773 - they wouldn't have sounded like the smug idiots they proved themselves to be.

So who is it who's misinformed about the modern day Tea parties and spreading myths about its motivations, beliefs, and origins?

You only get one guess....

New Finds

Expatriate New Englanders

Other Blogs We Like That Don't Fit Into Any One Category


Monthly Archives


Powered by Movable Type 4.1